Advice on purchasing new aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 64
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advice on purchasing new aircraft
I am looking at purchasing an aircraft for the new LSA category (<600kg MTOW) and have narrowed it down to two and being fairly new to aviation I was hoping to get your opinion on which one.
The two are:
CT-2k from Flight Design http://www.flightdesign.com/en_products.php
P92 Echo Super from Tecnam http://www.tecnam.co.nz/p92jinfo.htm
I am 45years old so for myself I just want it for touring around but it will also be used as an RAA/GA trainer and hired tourer by a respected school. Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages and are around the same cost.
Your honest opinions that may help me to decide are greatly appreciated
The two are:
CT-2k from Flight Design http://www.flightdesign.com/en_products.php
P92 Echo Super from Tecnam http://www.tecnam.co.nz/p92jinfo.htm
I am 45years old so for myself I just want it for touring around but it will also be used as an RAA/GA trainer and hired tourer by a respected school. Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages and are around the same cost.
Your honest opinions that may help me to decide are greatly appreciated
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fly them both, for a few hrs! and buy the one that you like best, the most comfortable in, the one you prefer to fly.
, because if you love to fly it, so will others.
, because if you love to fly it, so will others.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 64
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks "Ultralights" - that's the problem, I have flown them both and enjoy both of them. There a lot of things different but also similiar - put them both into one and I would have the perfect aircraft. Flight characteristics on both are very similiar and there are little things different like the CT allows you to simply select a flap setting but the Tecnam makes you click through lesser settings to get to a higher one, the Tecnam has wing struts the CT doesn't, the Tecnam is 80% metal with fabric the CT is all composite but as I said they both fly very similiar.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being particularly familiar with either one, my initial preference, since you mentioned that you will be putting it on the line and you are having a difficult time deciding between the two, would be to lean towards the Tecnam. Metal and fabric construction should be a cheaper repair job than the equivalent effort working with composite materials. Composite materials are an expensive fix for some careless git's negligence, whereas metal and fabric is a little more forgiving with more ginger beers knowing how to conduct the repair. If I was the only one expected to fly the aircraft, or I had the final say everytime on who flew the aircraft by invitation only, then I'd favour the composite material.
I watched a Glasair in a crosswind one day get all tied up sideways and bash a wing tip on the runway. Not a pretty sight or a cheap repair job.
Just my opinion...
I watched a Glasair in a crosswind one day get all tied up sideways and bash a wing tip on the runway. Not a pretty sight or a cheap repair job.
Just my opinion...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about comparing running costs, cost of usable spares, tyres, filters, spark plugs, brake pads and other wearing parts, then the biggie! which one is cheaper to Insure? will the aircraft be registered VH or RAA?
a composite aircraft will have a lot less issues with corrosion later in its life. but will be more expensive to repair than metal/cloth
how about ease of maintainece? acess to engine, rear of instrument panels, pitot/ static system? inspections of flight control system? as you going to be maintaining the aircraft?
just a few other things to think about!
a composite aircraft will have a lot less issues with corrosion later in its life. but will be more expensive to repair than metal/cloth
how about ease of maintainece? acess to engine, rear of instrument panels, pitot/ static system? inspections of flight control system? as you going to be maintaining the aircraft?
just a few other things to think about!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 64
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft will be registered RAA. Here is some comparisons (including the new J160 Jabiru):
------------------------CT2k--------Tecnam P92-----Jabiru 160
Stall (Vso)--------------34kts--------34kts--------------45kts
Cruise 75%-------------132kts-------113kts------------100kts
Max Speed (Vn--------168kts-------127kts------------132kts
Climb------------------990ft/min---1180ft/min-------500ft/min
Glide Ratio-------------17:1-----------?------------------10:1
Take Off Run-----------90m---------140m--------------200m
Take Off Run (15m)----160m---------245m--------------?
Landing Run-----------?--------------100m--------------168m
Range (with reserve)---1080nm------400nm------------1030nm
Fuel Tank---------------130litres-----70litres-----------135litres
Empty Weight----------268kg--------320kg-------------275kg
Construction------------Composite---Metal/Fabric-----Composite
Stall Aileron Control----Yes------------Yes----------------Yes
Stall Wing Drop--------No -----------Yes-----------------Yes
The CT2k and the Tecnam both have Rotax engines so engine parts will cost the same but I will start looking at part costs for everything else - thanks all so far and as they are both around the $125k it's a lot of money so I want to make sure I have thought of everything
------------------------CT2k--------Tecnam P92-----Jabiru 160
Stall (Vso)--------------34kts--------34kts--------------45kts
Cruise 75%-------------132kts-------113kts------------100kts
Max Speed (Vn--------168kts-------127kts------------132kts
Climb------------------990ft/min---1180ft/min-------500ft/min
Glide Ratio-------------17:1-----------?------------------10:1
Take Off Run-----------90m---------140m--------------200m
Take Off Run (15m)----160m---------245m--------------?
Landing Run-----------?--------------100m--------------168m
Range (with reserve)---1080nm------400nm------------1030nm
Fuel Tank---------------130litres-----70litres-----------135litres
Empty Weight----------268kg--------320kg-------------275kg
Construction------------Composite---Metal/Fabric-----Composite
Stall Aileron Control----Yes------------Yes----------------Yes
Stall Wing Drop--------No -----------Yes-----------------Yes
The CT2k and the Tecnam both have Rotax engines so engine parts will cost the same but I will start looking at part costs for everything else - thanks all so far and as they are both around the $125k it's a lot of money so I want to make sure I have thought of everything
Last edited by ibaker; 27th Mar 2005 at 10:33.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the key point as being putting the aircraft on a flightline for hire.
For me that rules composite out no matter how respected the school. Humans are different when they hire something - the old rented car analogy.
Whatever the integrity of the school, damage, especial hidden damage, and the associated risks and costs make the decision simple.
Knock the cross hiring out of the equation with just you flying and everything changes. Go with the one that's feels right for you.
Regards
Rob Lloyd - Jodel D120 built in nature's composite....
For me that rules composite out no matter how respected the school. Humans are different when they hire something - the old rented car analogy.
Whatever the integrity of the school, damage, especial hidden damage, and the associated risks and costs make the decision simple.
Knock the cross hiring out of the equation with just you flying and everything changes. Go with the one that's feels right for you.
Regards
Rob Lloyd - Jodel D120 built in nature's composite....
I'matightbastard
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Don't do it! Don't rent it out!
If you have to buy one then buy one, but as much as it pains me, I have to admit that's the second post that one ball sorry, I mean Scrubbed has made that I agree with.
I used to have a beautiful skyhawk till some tw@t wrote it off when he ran it dry
So running the numbers should be enough to show you it makes no sense to even buy one, but I know you won't listen to that so do yourself a favour, get the one you want and keep it to yourself.
and I hope you enjoy it.
Don't do it! Don't rent it out!
If you have to buy one then buy one, but as much as it pains me, I have to admit that's the second post that one ball sorry, I mean Scrubbed has made that I agree with.
I used to have a beautiful skyhawk till some tw@t wrote it off when he ran it dry
So running the numbers should be enough to show you it makes no sense to even buy one, but I know you won't listen to that so do yourself a favour, get the one you want and keep it to yourself.
and I hope you enjoy it.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
based on performance only, i would go with the CT2K, the 130 Kts cruise speed, and good field perfomance!
the higher cruise speed will make it the aircraft of choice for nav training..
the higher cruise speed will make it the aircraft of choice for nav training..
Unless you are an instructor yourself, and will be doing the checking of hirers - then be very wary.
You won't be the first owner to discover, (at a future annual/100 inspection), that it's been heavy landed or groundlooped and has suffered some very expensive injury.
Of course, the flight school 'managing ' your expensive baby, will swear on the Bible that their instructors are faultless and ergo...so are the hirers they've checked out.
When it's your bird, you'll look at hirers much, much more critically.
happy days,
You won't be the first owner to discover, (at a future annual/100 inspection), that it's been heavy landed or groundlooped and has suffered some very expensive injury.
Of course, the flight school 'managing ' your expensive baby, will swear on the Bible that their instructors are faultless and ergo...so are the hirers they've checked out.
When it's your bird, you'll look at hirers much, much more critically.
happy days,
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft you own are like your kids... Doesn't matter how ugly they are or how they perform, you still love them. (I must be pi$$ed)
I have known too many a/c owners who have had some spazzo bend their pride and joy, without prior thought of the consequences.
A lot of people hire their planes out though.... My advice is, fly it yourself for a while, and then think how you would feel, if one of the above mentioned had a go with it. If you don't mind that, (remember you may see someone else learn to fly it too), go for it!!!
Thanks for reading..
Cheers!
I have known too many a/c owners who have had some spazzo bend their pride and joy, without prior thought of the consequences.
A lot of people hire their planes out though.... My advice is, fly it yourself for a while, and then think how you would feel, if one of the above mentioned had a go with it. If you don't mind that, (remember you may see someone else learn to fly it too), go for it!!!
Thanks for reading..
Cheers!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 64
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly enough to warrant owning an aircraft just for myself and nor do I have the money to have the aircraft just sitting in a hangar BUT I fly enough that hiring all the time would be very costly. Plus, I did my training and are a member of the club where the aircraft would be online so I know what they are like.
The club has 2 Skyfox Gazelles with each one getting about 50hrs a month of training hire and they will be selling one of them as they really need a cruiser for cross country navs. They were going to buy one but have said that they won't if I, being a club member, buys one and puts it on line as they are a "Club" not a business.
I have a great deal of respect for the instructors and the club members and in the way the ensure nothing but professionalism in their instruction and flying. I have seen many other schools and have seen what you all mean by the way they treat their birds but this one is different hence why I have stayed with them.
I still have yet to decide on which aircraft but I feel the CT2k may be slightly ahead - any thoughts?
Regards
Ian
The club has 2 Skyfox Gazelles with each one getting about 50hrs a month of training hire and they will be selling one of them as they really need a cruiser for cross country navs. They were going to buy one but have said that they won't if I, being a club member, buys one and puts it on line as they are a "Club" not a business.
I have a great deal of respect for the instructors and the club members and in the way the ensure nothing but professionalism in their instruction and flying. I have seen many other schools and have seen what you all mean by the way they treat their birds but this one is different hence why I have stayed with them.
I still have yet to decide on which aircraft but I feel the CT2k may be slightly ahead - any thoughts?
Regards
Ian
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you probably expected, the Pprune jury reaches a hung decision.
Either one looks good. The CT2k has nice performance, which will be more desireable to the renter and that will allow you to charge a little more per hour than the Tec and hopefully get some reserves together in the event that someone does do a spot of damage.
Enjoy your flying.
Either one looks good. The CT2k has nice performance, which will be more desireable to the renter and that will allow you to charge a little more per hour than the Tec and hopefully get some reserves together in the event that someone does do a spot of damage.
Enjoy your flying.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Downunder USA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P92 Echo Super from Tecnam
ibaker,
I would have to highly recommend the Tecnam. I am a little Bias because I know Bruce and have flown his Tecnams before.
They fly a lot more like an aircraft rather than an ultralight, they are also constructed like a real aircraft not like an ultralight. Not composite built, the real stuff!!
They are simple to fly and dont have to be wheeled back into the hangar when the wind gets above 15kts.
The best one I flew actually had a constant speed unit which was very simple to operate. If you do your research and fly these things I am sure you will agree.
I think in a few years time we are going to see a lot more of these.
Cheers
I would have to highly recommend the Tecnam. I am a little Bias because I know Bruce and have flown his Tecnams before.
They fly a lot more like an aircraft rather than an ultralight, they are also constructed like a real aircraft not like an ultralight. Not composite built, the real stuff!!
They are simple to fly and dont have to be wheeled back into the hangar when the wind gets above 15kts.
The best one I flew actually had a constant speed unit which was very simple to operate. If you do your research and fly these things I am sure you will agree.
I think in a few years time we are going to see a lot more of these.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Melbourne
Age: 64
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I did make a choice - I have purchased the CT and waiting on delivery which will be approx Aug-Sept
The Tecnam is a nice aircraft, handles very well especially at low speed, is metal and fabric and well, it does look like a normal aircraft and a nice looking one at that. What I didn't like about it compared to the CT is it's lower cruise speed, smaller fuel tanks, much heavier and only the standard cabin room. After taking both for a fly it was obvious that the CT was a better performer.
I took the CT up to my club to get a few other opinions and from those that had already looked at the Tecnam. As each one got out of the CT after a small flight their face was grinning from ear to ear. One guy who has an RV6 or maybe its a 7 and had flown many other aircraft said it was the best aircraft he had ever flown. One of the instructors said the darn thing was so forgiving even in a stall which he said doesn't even exist. He had full control over everything when it had stalled and all he was doing was losing altitude yet he could make the aircraft still dance - he loved it. Another guy who is rather large just could not get over how it climbed with so much weight in it and he couldn't believe the performance flying overhead at 130kts. And on the stories go - all similiar and they are from people that were also looking at the Tecnam for the club.
If there is anything that I could pick on about it is that it doesn't want to pull up and land - it just wants to keep flying so you have to bring it back to idle on downwind to lose speed - so I have decided to get the Short Wing version which has a slighly higher cruise speed but is more traditional when on final.
It will be used for ultralight and PPL training at Shepparton (Victoria) plus available for wet hire to any club member. I have spec'd it with the Bendix KX125 Nav/Com, Bendix Colour SkyMap 111C GPS, Mode C Transponder, full guages of ASI-AH-3pt Alt-TC-DG-VSI plus clock/Timer and Digital Rotax Engine Management System (and just to splurge - the mahogany panel). I am currently trying to decide whether to get the 3 axis trim setup or not.
Hope this helps
The Tecnam is a nice aircraft, handles very well especially at low speed, is metal and fabric and well, it does look like a normal aircraft and a nice looking one at that. What I didn't like about it compared to the CT is it's lower cruise speed, smaller fuel tanks, much heavier and only the standard cabin room. After taking both for a fly it was obvious that the CT was a better performer.
I took the CT up to my club to get a few other opinions and from those that had already looked at the Tecnam. As each one got out of the CT after a small flight their face was grinning from ear to ear. One guy who has an RV6 or maybe its a 7 and had flown many other aircraft said it was the best aircraft he had ever flown. One of the instructors said the darn thing was so forgiving even in a stall which he said doesn't even exist. He had full control over everything when it had stalled and all he was doing was losing altitude yet he could make the aircraft still dance - he loved it. Another guy who is rather large just could not get over how it climbed with so much weight in it and he couldn't believe the performance flying overhead at 130kts. And on the stories go - all similiar and they are from people that were also looking at the Tecnam for the club.
If there is anything that I could pick on about it is that it doesn't want to pull up and land - it just wants to keep flying so you have to bring it back to idle on downwind to lose speed - so I have decided to get the Short Wing version which has a slighly higher cruise speed but is more traditional when on final.
It will be used for ultralight and PPL training at Shepparton (Victoria) plus available for wet hire to any club member. I have spec'd it with the Bendix KX125 Nav/Com, Bendix Colour SkyMap 111C GPS, Mode C Transponder, full guages of ASI-AH-3pt Alt-TC-DG-VSI plus clock/Timer and Digital Rotax Engine Management System (and just to splurge - the mahogany panel). I am currently trying to decide whether to get the 3 axis trim setup or not.
Hope this helps
